Who's rights are most important

accymel · 23-06-2006, 10:03

AS in the criminal justice system, Mr Blair cant make up his mind

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/23062006/34...tem-shake.html

What do you think?

Personally i think they system caters too much for the criminal & having personal experieince of being victim of crime & attempting to get justice through various types of trials & courts i can see why people are reluctant to come forward as its for the defendant - innocent till proven guilty & for victims on stand its - guilty till proven innocent.

Wynonie Harris · 23-06-2006, 11:10

I think the vast majority of people who actually live in the real world would totally agree with you, Mel. What amazes me is that Blair talks as if he has been somewhere else for the last nine years and has just returned to discover this situation. Yet another empty speech from a discredited politician.

accymel · 23-06-2006, 11:20

Cheers Wynonie

I think he's been abducted by aliens from Planet criminals rule land cos he's certainly not on this planet he's like a one eyed cyclopse - only sees the bit in front not the wider picture lol.

Gayle · 23-06-2006, 11:26

I think that in America the system is 'guilty until proven innocent' whereas in the UK it's 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It would be interesting to have some comparative figures to see how many cases get to trial (I presume they have to build a bigger case for an American trial) and how many get convicted. I wouldn't know where to start in getting those figures.

I was however, reading in the paper the other day that in 1982 the number of rape cases against women that resulted in a conviction were 1 in 4. Last year the number of cases had risen significantly but convictions were only 1 in 20. So lots more cases are being brought to trial and more people are being convicted but a high number of people brought to trial are deemed innocent. Would that be the case if they had to prove their innocence rather than their prosecutor having to prove their guilt?

accymel · 23-06-2006, 11:34

Mmmmm what the statistics say & whats the reality is somewhat different, i can say cos ive been involved as giving evidence against a criminal act that i was a victim to in Preston Crown jury trial, which was my biggest out of all & it was rather harrowing specially when defence barrister was allowed to bully me on stand - even call me a liar!!! without evidence nor proof, the judge didnt bat an eyelid & let this bully carry on, so i had to prove i wasn't but the defendant wasn't allowed to be called anything to imply his guilt despite the evidence till jury had returned their guilty verdict!!

Thats the point im getting at! So wheres the fairness??

accymel · 23-06-2006, 11:36

Trouble is do we want to be like America????? Are the ethics of our country too influenced by Mr Blair sucking upto G Bush???

Gayle · 23-06-2006, 11:38

It does sound awful and I don't really know a lot about it to talk confidently but I suppose they are trying to make sure that a vendetta against a person doesn't result in an innocent man going to prison. They have to be absolutely sure if they're convicting someone that the 'victim' isn't lying. I can imagine how it might feel that they're not taking your word for it but they have to be absolutely sure that your word is honest. Sounds awful.

accymel · 23-06-2006, 11:46

It wasn't nice, it really upset me so much because i prosectutuing for violence & felt the defendant was still bullying me even in a court of law, lucky judge did give me a break to take a breather cos i was being bombarded with Q's & no time to answer but i realised after that the defence was drawing short straws with their own case - which justice in the end was done but very harrowing. I know how the court system operates & one thing is that you have to remain sceptical in the system because sentencing & judgements dont reflect the crime at all - its who's got the biggest blag & can remain calm other than evidence so sometimes truth isn't always the full case.

Been there & done it - back again this year for justice so simply can say from experience rather than the stand back objectiveness.

Wynonie Harris · 23-06-2006, 12:04

Must admit, Mel, I've never been in your position but I did undertake jury service a few years ago and I was surprised at the way defence barristers were given carte blanche to harrass the victims but prosecution barristers had to tiptoe around defendants.

I think a lot of it stems from the fact that the Charter of Human Rights was incorporated into British law by this government in 1998. At the time, they promised that it would improve the rights of ordinary citizens. Instead, we have found that our rights have actually decreased (proposed introduction of identity cards), while criminals have used it to their advantage. There have been recent offenders have been released early to commit more crimes because the probation service was afraid of breaching their human rights.

If Tony Blair was really serious about what he says he would repeal or at least amend this act (even though it would limit his wife's employment opportunities)...but don't hold your breath.

accymel · 23-06-2006, 12:11

SO it wasn't just me pmsl!!!! Seems to be the theme in the process i think the jury in my case were very shocked at this defence barrister's badgering too even some cried with me LOL

I do beleive the rights are mainly more focussed on the defendant even when sentenced the sentencing judgment is poor & easy going, so theres no wonder criminality is on the increase simply because there is no deterrant & become regulars in the system.

Even with his wife onside he's still poorly informed of the true state of our justice system i'suppose Cherie is a defence barrister on high & he doesn't want to cause domestics in his own house, therefore why the country is in the state its in.

Madhatter · 23-06-2006, 12:32

While I agree in such circumstances that you are made to feel guilty, I don't agree that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, they are guilty until proved inocent. try being the accused and you'll see what I mean.
I got took to court because some woman said I reversed in to her car. For 1 I was in an ambulance bay delivering transplant tissue, second she'd blocked me in, when she shouldn't have been waiting there. third i didn't hit her scrap heap car, I reversed but stopped before I hit it. She stopped me getting out the space, but when I did manage to get her to move, I stopped at the scene, arguing with her that I hadn't hit it. She asked for my details, I said no, I haven't hit it, she started punching the van. At this point I drove off and forgot about it.
Months later I got took to the police station and got interviewed, I recieved a summonse that said if your not guilty, send off stating that your pleading not guilty and don't attend court. next thing I know, days after a double hernia op I'm arrested for not attending court.
I then attended court 3 more times but it got adjourned. When I eventually did get the case seen, my solicitor advised me to plead guilty, because of several witnesses 'seeing' me reverse into the car. strange how people want to be a witness, and always 'see' it happen.
What I didn't know was that I was pleading guilty to not stopping at the scene of an accident, which is a serious offence. I could have gone to prison. I did stop, I argued with her, It was only when she got agressive did I leave. As a result of me being guilty when I wasn't and being told to plead guilty, My insurance went up by a thousand pound a year, to 1650, I was restricted to one vehicle, and it's impossible for me to get insurance other than through the company.
I was guilty, I was arrested, and worse still I was charged with the wrong offence anway, even though I was innocent.

Madhatter · 23-06-2006, 12:36

Perhaps the above is because it's a car crime and a trivial one at that. wheras a girl in tamworth gets her face smashed so that she needs a metal plate in it and he gets something like 14 months, which is 7 in reality, for permanantly scaring a girl and ruining her life.

Wynonie Harris · 23-06-2006, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madhatter

wheras a girl in tamworth gets her face smashed so that she needs a metal plate in it and he gets something like 14 months, which is 7 in reality, for permanantly scaring a girl and ruining her life.

A prime example of the inadequacy of British justice. Basically, the whole criminal justice system needs overhauling with genuine life sentences for murderers and correspondingly higher sentences for other serious criminals. The prisons are full? Build more (and I would gladly see my taxes increased to fund this).

Madhatter · 23-06-2006, 12:50

I can't get that case out of my head, it haunts me, she was, but still is soo pretty.
She stayed with him the first time he punched her cos she found out she was pregnant, the second time she left, this time, she let him into get the son because of access rights and he punched her because he'd seen her talking to some guy. probably someone decent loving and caring unlike him. he punched her so hard it broke her cheek bone, he then took her into the bathroom to wash the blood off so that the kid wouldn't see it. she slipped, passed out and he called an ambulance.
The sentance is pathetic considering he'd done it twice before, and kids were present.

SPUGGIE J · 23-06-2006, 17:44

Until those in power realise that a criminal does what they do because they want to then we will see more and more getting light sentences. There seems to be a lot put into the early life of criminals in order to give a reason for why they did what they did. The Tamworth case is an example of someone on a power trip with the actions to justify it. So did they find that he was slapped about as a kid and thats why he slapped this lady. Sooner or later the powers will be will have to realise that as people will not stand for this much longer.

The idea to try it "american style" could backfire as easy as our own does. A complete rethink is needed to sort out this mess as a lot of those convicted must laugh at the sentence they get and as such it is no deterrent at all. If a victim got a tenth of the support that a convicted person got it might be a start. Then start treating these convicts harsher and with heavier sentences than a present and stop treating them like they are the victim. That unfortunately is wishful thinking from me at the moment.